Judging Freedom - Scott Ritter: The Missiles of April.

Episode Date: April 15, 2024

Scott Ritter: The Missiles of April.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, April 15th, 2024. Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, my dear friend, a pleasure. Thank you very much for joining us. Who prevailed over the weekend in the contest between Iran retaliating upon Israel's destruction of its consulate in Damascus, and the UK, the US, Jordan, and Israel attempting to interfere with and nullify that retaliation? I would say that the people of the United States,

the people of Europe, the people of the world prevailed. And the reason why is Iran was able to establish deterrence superiority over Israel when it comes to Israel's perceived right of being able to strike Iran anytime, anywhere Israel chose. But Iran did so in a manner which, for any rational human being, precluded the need for Israel to retaliate. It was a very sophisticated, a very measured response that as long as Israel doesn't do anything crazy, and unfortunately, it looks like Israel might be getting ready to do something crazy, allows the global economy to stabilize. I just want everybody to understand that if Israel attacks Iran, Iran's retaliation will probably be of a scope and scale that will turn the global economy upside down. You think you don't like gas prices now? Just wait. You don't like food prices? Wait till there's no diesel for trucks to deliver food to your grocery stores.

This is the future of America and the global economy if Israel chooses to attack Iran, because the Iranian response will include a retaliation against the United States, which will prompt an American response, which will prompt Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which will lead to a general strike between Iran and Saudi Arabia, destroying critical oil-producing infrastructure. So right now, Iran did the world a favor by politely telling the Israelis, you can't strike us for free. There will be a price to be paid. But Israel suffered no real harm. Israel, because it's not about Israeli security, it's about Benjamin Netanyahu's political fortune, Israel, under Netanyahu's leadership, has to strike back. At least they perceive they have to strike back. But they don't.

They don't need to strike back. Right now, peace exists in Israel. People are in cafes in Tel Aviv. They won't be in cafes in Tel Aviv if Israel strikes Iran. What conceivable military, diplomatic, or political purpose was served by the Israeli destruction and murder of the people inside of the consulate in Damascus? Well, again, I believe Israel was operating, and successfully so, operating under the assumption that they enjoyed deterrence supremacy. Because Israel has been assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists for years, for decades. They've been blowing up Iranian critical infrastructure covertly for decades.

They've been using proxies in Pakistan, Iraq, and elsewhere to attack Iran for decades. They've been blowing up Iranian assets in Lebanon, in Syria and Iraq, again, for years with no penalty. Iran has not retaliated. But Iran drew a red line. They said that we will retaliate if you strike Iranian soil. I think the Israelis believe that by blowing up this consulate, that Iran wouldn't make it like soil because Iran was afraid to attack Israel because of the fear of what Israel would do in retaliation. Israel believed that this meeting of IRGC Quds Force leadership posed such a threat to Israel that it was worth the risk. So they did the action. They didn't believe Iran would retaliate, not on the scope and scale that Iran

did. And I don't believe they thought for a moment that Iran would be able to penetrate the world's most sophisticated, in-depth, dense, anti-ballistic missile capability ever. The one that was guarding Nevatim airfield, they didn't think Iran could penetrate, but Iran did. Five missiles landed on it, and Iran made the point that it can hit any time, any place, anywhere in Israel, and there's nothing that Israel or the United States can do to stop them. How surgical and how strategic was the Iranian attack? Our colleague Alistair Crook has saluted them, as have you, saying that many of the drones that were sent there were like pawns in a chess game. They were sent knowing they'd be destroyed, and by destroying them, the Iranians saw from where the destruction was coming and forced the Israelis to expend, is this possible, Scott, a billion dollars in one weekend?

That's just the cost for Israel. I think when you add up the total cost for everybody involved, the price tag will probably be closer to $2 billion, could even approach $3 billion. This is very expensive, this kind of anti-ballistic missile warfare. And the drones that Israel was launching against Israel, which by the way, just to remind everybody, that Iran provided the United States and Israel with 72 hours advance notice of this attack. Is that normal? It's normal if you don't want to kill people.

It's normal if you're just trying to prove a point not to do harm. Surely the Israelis did not provide notice to the Iranians before they destroyed that consulate. No, but we're talking about two different countries, two different objectives. The Iranian purpose here is not to promote and provoke a larger war. It's to make the point to Israel in a way that doesn't kill Israel. Because remember, the goal wasn't to provoke an Israeli retaliation. The goal was to demonstrate to Israel and the United States that Iran possessed the ability to destroy Israel anytime it wanted to. And so they deliberately struck targets that were only military in nature, only military targets that were involved in the attack on the consulate. And they did so in a way

that guaranteed that there wouldn't be Israeli casualties. This was just a demonstration. It's not normal unless you're a rational nation not seeking to expand the conflict. So they gave 72 hours advance notice. Then they launched the drones, which gave Israel an additional five hours, not an additional, but now that said in five hours you will be under attack and it allowed israel and the united states to get the defense ready this is what the iranians wanted what the drones did is light up israel got the radars going and iran was able to plot the radars and point out where every single anti-ballistic missile system was then they followed up the drones with cruise missiles, which actually penetrated Israeli airspace, causing these air defense nodes to open fire, exposing,

first they exposed the radars, now they expose the launchers, which are separate from the radars. And then Israel, now seeing this, was able to fire ballistic missiles at the targets they wanted in a manner which hit the targets, not destroyed the targets, hit the targets. But they also, for good measure, destroyed a couple of the air defense nodes, letting the Israelis know that we know where you are and we took you out. And if we wanted to do this again, we would take all of your defense capabilities out. This was a very, very successful attack by Iran. Did the Iranians attack an Israeli intelligence operation with some sort of a strange number, 8,200 group? Do I have that right? Well, 8,200 is a unit. It's the equivalent of the National Security Agency for Israel. But there's a number, 8200 has a number of units.

It's like an umbrella organization. I actually worked with 8200 when I was working with Israel, cooperated with them on some special missions that we were running inside Iraq to hunt down weapons of mass destruction. So I'm pretty familiar with this organization. In the Golan Heights, 8200 has a very large communications intercept station. And here, given the line of sight that they have with Damascus, they're able to monitor communications. And this is the site that gathered the intelligence about the Iranians being in the consulate at the time, and then they passed intelligence up to, uplinked it to the Israeli F-35 and F-16 fighters, which operated out of Nevatim Airfield and Ramon Airfield. These are the three sites that were struck, the 8,200 SIGINT site in the Golan Heights, Nevatim, and Ramon. These are the three sites that were

involved in striking the Iranian consulate in Damascus on the 1st of April. And these are the three sites that Iran hit, proving that Iran wasn't seeking an expansive conflict. They simply retaliated under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter against those elements that posed a recurring potential of threat of attack to Iran. Would you characterize the manner of the Iranian assault as such that it demonstrated the Israeli and the U.S. vulnerability. Let me make this point as clear as I can make it. The Batim airfield was the most protected spot on the planet when it came to anti-ballistic missile defense. There's no other place on the planet, not the White House, not the Kremlin, nowhere,

that has the level and sophistication and density of anti-ballistic missile capacity than Novotim Airfield. They have an American X-band radar, which is designed to detect over the horizon Iranian missile launches. That radar is linked to a ballistic missile defense organization headquarters out of Colorado Springs, which is connected to satellites to give them nonstop monitoring capabilities. So they monitor the missiles when they're launched. They monitor them as they come in. They track them and they identify the assets to destroy them.

They're linked to Arrow 2, Arrow 3, Advanced Patriot, FAD missiles, David Sling. All these missiles get Maverick excited. And these missiles are all designed to provide layered defense. They didn't shoot down the five missiles. It's my understanding that Iran launched seven missiles against Nevada airfield. Two of them either malfunctioned or were shot down, probably shot down, but five hit despite all of this. This proves to, it should prove to everybody, Israeli and American-like,

that there is no defense against Iranian missiles. Is the United States driving Iran into the Russian orbit? Iran's already in the Russian orbit. I mean, they don't have to be driven. Look, Iran spent a lot of time in the Western orbit under the Shah. And even after the Shah, you know, one can see that I went to Iran back in 2005, and I had a fascinating conversation with an Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander who had been part of the crackdown on the Mujahideen Al-Khalk in 1970, 1980. And then he was sent over to Europe, to Germany, where he was tasked with carrying out special actions. That probably means assassination of Kurdish opponents before coming back.

And what he said is, instead of learning to hate the West, he and his colleagues came back and told the Iranian government, you know, there's some bad things about the West, but we actually should learn to live with these people because they have high standards, high quality, and we need that for our recovery in the war against Iraq. And so there was within Iran, even in the Revolutionary Guard Command, this tendency to focus on the West, to always say the West will finally figure it out that we're not the bad guys, that we can work with them and we can get along. And the West never did. There was people inside Iran who were talking about pivoting East for some time now, but they

were always pushed back by the pro-Western people. That day is over. The pivot East has won. Iran has abandoned the West. They will never return to the West. They are now pivoted to East, and Russia is a very instrumental part of that pivot. Chris, can you put up the picture of Prime Minister Netanyahu at the UN with that cartoon. No, we don't have it, or he'll get it. It's that famous picture of Bibi Netanyahu with the cartoon of a bomb showing how close the Iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. Isn't it true that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon? Not only does Iran not have a nuclear weapon, Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon, has never have a nuclear weapon not only does iran not have a nuclear weapon iran doesn't want

a nuclear weapon has never wanted a nuclear weapon and has never had a military nuclear program the military has been involved in procurement of um of material of technologies needed for nuclear enrichment that's because the united states and Europe sanctioned Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a signatory. Iran has every right to have access to this technology so long as it's monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. But the U.S. and Europe said, no, you can't have access to this. And so covertly, Iran had to go out and acquire this. And the people that were running the covert acquisition programs and the covert production programs, when they were trying to keep it secret from the West, that they were actually moving towards enrichment because they didn't want the

West to bomb it, to interdict it, to stop this. So they did it covertly. They admit later on that they needed to have declared it earlier than they did, but they eventually declared it. But the people that were doing that were related to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command, the military, but there was no weaponization program. There never has been one. The CIA knows this. Everybody knows this. Israel knows it. But Israel continues to put out false information in order to create the perception of an Iranian nuclear threat that justifies Israel taking a hard stance against Iran. So Iran covertly obtained nuclear knowledge or fission material for domestic peaceful purposes. Israel stole it from us for military purposes in order to develop a nuclear weapon. Do I have that right? You do. And we also need to point out that

Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and there are no international inspections of the Israeli nuclear enterprise, and that the Israeli nuclear enterprise is almost exclusively dedicated to the production of nuclear weapons. All right. There's the photo that I'm talking about. This is a while ago. This is 10 years ago. What is he trying to demonstrate to the UN? He's showing the level of percentage of enrichment and how easily it will be for Iran to move from low enrichment up to fissile material. And he was showing via that red line where he thought Iran was and that Iran could instantly produce nuclear weapons if it wanted to. But that's the case that Netanyahu has been making and Israel has been making for decades now. I mean, back in 1995, Iran was supposedly two years away from building a nuclear bomb.

And recently they've been months away. But they don't have nuclear weapons and they don't want nuclear weapons. They deem weapons of mass destruction in general to be an affront to Islam, affront to religion. And the supreme leader of Iran on multiple occasions has issued a fatwa, a religious decree, declaring weapons of mass destruction to be hamam or prohibited, forbidden under Islam. Chris, this statement from two minutes ago, we have a tape of it or you want me to read it? Okay, so this is two minutes ago from the chief of staff, Herzi Halevi. I guess he's Netanyahu's chief of staff or maybe the chief of staff from the military.

Two minutes ago, this launch of so many missiles, cruise missiles, and drones into Israeli territory will be met with a response. Right. And I think right after that, the Iranians tweeted out, we have to respond. They're putting pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu. But even though Halevi has said this, even though the war cabinet may have voted in favor of it, it's ultimately up to Benjamin Netanyahu to give the orders. He's still receiving phone calls from the United States saying, we're not going to be with you on this one. You're going to be alone. And I think what's happening is that the Israelis are trying to pressure Biden into providing the support, because without American support, any Israeli retaliation will be of a vastly limited scope. They can't get sufficient air

power sustained over Iranian territory without American refueling capability and other American support like electronic warfare, suppression of enemy air defense, everything that had been planned for. So it's a very risky operation by Israel to launch an attack that will not achieve the objectives they hope it to achieve, but will instead expose all of Israel to a devastating counterattack by it. Why is Israel doing this other than Netanyahu's personal political problems and messianic view of himself? The current Israeli government is in a very precarious situation in terms of domestic politics. And they may lose. If there's

not a retaliation, there's a chance that several conservative, arch conservative members of the cabinet could resign and withdraw from the coalition government. And then Benjamin Netanyahu would collapse. And so there's a game being played right now within Israel where these very conservative guys get the voice of the necessity to attack, to assuage their honor, so to speak. This is being seconded by military people, but the belief is that Benjamin Netanyahu will, at the end of the day, say he can't because America won't let him, and that provides political cover for everybody. But the danger is if Netanyahu decides that not carrying out this attack could lead to the collapse of his government from the pressure that these arch conservative parties aren't playing a game, but they're very serious. And then he'll have to launch the attack. And then what we have is Israel destroying global economic peace and prosperity because of the political ambitions of one man, Benjamin Netanyahu. There is no moral equivalence between the Israeli murder of 15 people, including two generals,

when they destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, and Iran's sophisticated surgical attack of just military sites. Isn't that true? 100%. Iran has every right under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to retaliate against Israel's unprovoked attack against Iranian sovereign territory in Damascus, which, of course, the consulate is sovereign territory under international law. Israel has no right to retaliate in response because especially given the fact that the Iranian retaliation was proportionate and deliberately subdued so as not to kill and

create damage that could provoke Israel. Well, this will raise your blood pressure. Lord David Cameron, the British foreign minister, yesterday on the British talk show, cut number eight. What about Iran's frustration at part of its sovereign territory being flattened? Well, I would argue there is a massive degree of difference between what Israel did in Damascus and, as I said, 301 weapons being launched by the state of Iran at the state of Israel for the first time, a state-on-state attack.

101 ballistic missiles, 36 cruise missiles, 185 drones. That is a degree of difference. And I think a reckless and dangerous thing for Iran to have done. And I think the whole world can see all these countries that have somehow wondered, well, you know, what is the true nature of Iran? It's there in black and white. Does the man know what he's talking about? No. First of all, what was in black and white is the restrained nature of Iran's response and how responsible it was in terms of limiting damage and creating sufficient off ramps for Israel and its allies to avoid the need for escalation. What was missing in that clip was part two, where she said, what would Britain do if one of their consulates was destroyed?

And he said, well, of course, we'd respond with a very strong and robust response. So why can't Iran do that? See, there's the hypocrisy of the British. Here's another member of the British Parliament earlier today, the great George Galloway, commenting on Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, and you'll hear the prime minister's response. Speaker, I knew your father well for a very long time. He was a fine man, and I am sincerely sorry for your loss. There was not one single word in the Prime Minister's statement of condemnation of the Israeli destruction of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which is the proximate reason for the event everyone is here in concert condemning. He was not even asked to do so by the front bench opposite.

Kay Burley is the only person so far to demand that of a government minister. We have no treaty with Israel, at least not one that Parliament has been shown. And the Iranians are not likely to listen to him when Britaind Iran, yn llwyddo'i gwerth a'i gwrthwynebu i'w rhan ynwyddodd ychydig wythnosau yn ddiweddar, yn unig, yn unig, yn unig. Mae'r hyn a ddigwyddodd yn unig yn unig. Mae'r hyn a ddigwyddodd yn unig yn unig yn unig. Mae'r hyn a ddigwyddodd yn unig yn unig yn unig yn unig yn unig. And in the honorable gentleman's question, not once did he condemn that action or indeed the actions of Hamas in the region.

There is no equivalence between these things whatsoever. And to suggest. Well, the prime minister and his foreign minister have the same talking points. Absolutely. I mean, first of all, whatever may have happened in Damascus. Well, it was a violation of international law. It was murder. Murder is a violation of international law. But the British don't want to talk about that.

What they want to talk about is, you know, 300, you know, combined drones, cruise missiles and missiles being launched against Israel, killing nobody. I mean, unfortunately, I think there's a seven-year-old Bedouin girl, Arab-Israeli, who was severely hurt when debris fell to the ground from one of the missiles that was struck by ballistic missile defense. And that's a tragedy indeed and shouldn't ever be downplayed. One life lost or one person previously injured is one too many. But, you know, Iran purposely tried to avoid human casualties and infrastructure damage. So there is no comparison between the two, none whatsoever. There's no physical comparison and there's no moral comparison. Iran was empowered by international law. Article 51 does not say how many missiles you can have in your attack. I mean, that's the ludicrous supposition of the

British position. Would 100 missiles be okay, Mr. Prime Minister? How many missiles would be tolerable for the British when it comes to retaliation? And we know the British answer, which is if they were attacked, their response would be robust and extremely strong. Well, I imagine that the Iranians would say that their response was robust and extremely strong, and yet geared to avoid the loss of human life and the loss of major infrastructure. In a piece you recently wrote, Scott, you referred to Benjamin Netanyahu as driving a suicide bus. What did you mean by that? Well, literally right now, Israel's on a path of suicidal behavior. If they want to engage in an existential struggle against Iran,

the Israelis should be reminded that they live in a very small country that's made even smaller given the concentration of industry and major governmental buildings into very restricted urban environments that are easily targeted by Iran. That the physical annihilation of Israel is not a difficult task, and that Iran is fully capable of inflicting such damage on Israel. Now, Israel has nuclear weapons, the so-called Samson option, and they can fire them at Iran and other nations as they see fit, but it won't change the outcome. Suicide isn't about the taking of other people's lives. Suicide is about the taking of your own life. And Benjamin Netanyahu right now is at the wheel of a suicide bus driving Israel and indeed all those who seek to attach themselves to Israel off the edge of a cliff with lemming-like insistency. Here's Admiral Kirby pretending he's Baghdad Bob.

This is yesterday. It's on one of the talk shows. I think it's Meet the Press about whether the war is escalating. Cut number four. Has this now escalated into a wider war? I don't think there's any reason that it needs to. But has it? Are we now in the midst of a wider war? The president doesn't

believe that it needs to move in that direction whatsoever, Kristen. What Israel demonstrated last night was an incredible ability to defend itself. Just their own military superiority was quite remarkable yesterday. I mean, very little got through and the damage was extraordinarily light. And also Israel demonstrated again, as I said, that they're not standing alone, that they have friends. So the president's been clear. We don't want to see this escalate. We don't we're not looking for a wider war with Iran. I think I think, you know, the coming hours and days will tell us a lot. Same talking points without the numbers as Sunak and Cameron. Well, what's interesting is the point he's trying to make is that Israel has retained deterrence superiority, deterrence supremacy. That's the point he's trying to make is is that Israel is- That's not true.

Of course it's not true. And we know it's not true because Israel's in a panic right now. The Israelis know what happened. Okay. We in America can fool ourselves with all the spinning we want about the great defenses and all that. The Israeli cabinet, war cabinet knows what happened. The most highly defended space in the world from ballistic missile attack was touched five times by Iranian missiles that aren't even the best that Iran has, but they were good enough to Iran that it's not in your interest to do so. But now it's a gamble. Again, they think the Iranians are bluffing. They have read into Iran's restraint weakness. And so they're hoping that if they strike Iran,

and again, I think the Israeli strike will not be decisive. It would be demonstrative, meaning they would strike one or two, because that's all they can do without American assistance. This will not be an in-depth attack. They'll strike one or two nuclear-related facilities to send a signal. And their belief is that Iran will back down, that Iran will cede that attack and understand that, oh no, we're not invulnerable, Israel can do more harm. But the difference is Israel will be putting everything it has into that attack iran put in a fraction of what he has that they had in april in the attack on the 14th and iran has said they're not not going to wait to see what israel does if the planes take off and head towards iran the missiles will fly and this time it'll be a hundred times more deadly and more devastating than the attack on the

14th. Scott, thank you very much for all this. I'd like to go into Iran, but I have another, I'd like to go into Ukraine and the latest there, but I have another commitment, so we're going to have to finish here. But thank you very much. Thank you for the great piece that you wrote. And thank you for your time and analysis today, my dear friend. Well, thanks for having me on. Of course. We'll see you very much. Thank you for the great piece that you wrote. And thank you for your time and analysis today, my dear friend. Well, thank you for having me on. Of course. We'll see you again soon. Okay.

Let me just give you our stellar rundown for tomorrow. At 8 o'clock in the morning, Dr. Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., a brilliant, gifted writer who has the newest hot book out about the CIA and the murder of JFK. At 11 in the morning, Colonel Douglas McGregor on his Israel inching toward nuclear war. At 2 in the afternoon, Matthew Ho. At 3 in the afternoon, Karen Kwiatkowski. At 4 in the afternoon, Anya Parampel. And at 5 in the afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Parampel, and at five in the afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Another stellar day for you. But Ritter is at the top of his game, and I'm deeply grateful

for all of you. Broke all kinds of records with the number of you watching now. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. MUSIC